LITERATURE FOR LAWYERS, LAWYERS AND PRIVATE DETECTIVES

[Арсен]

Dear Colleagues! Detectives, lawyers, lawyers. In practice, we often encounter the fact that investigators, prosecutors,
judges do not take into account evidence gathered by the defense or private investigators in the trial;
viral refusal of allegedly, relevance or illegality of the material to a particular case. For a better understanding of the collection
evidence in a civil or criminal trial, I recommend reading the following literature:

1. EVIDENCE IN THE CIVIL PROCESS.
2. EVIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS.

ATTENTION! This literature may be useful to private detectives, especially beginners, lawyers, lawyers, etc. To order
can be in the OZON online store.

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Thank you Arsen for a new open topic, which for many is probably relevant))) Of course, the most pressing question is probably the question of the admissibility (from the point of view of procedural legislation) of the information obtained by the BH ... In the bulk, of course, this information can be evidence only if obtained by legal means. In addition, the status of evidence can be obtained in court (in civil, criminal cases), or at the preliminary investigation stage, or in court (in criminal cases) only after interrogation as a source witness, who provided the information (BH report), the most private detective ... And the legal status of BH both in civil (including arbitration) and in criminal proceedings has not yet been fixed ... Although, probably, this status especially not needed, because we simply help the participants in the process to collect the necessary information, which subsequently can obtain the status of evidence during the judicial investigation in cases of various categories (this is a personal opinion) ...

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

Thank!

 

[Юридическая Компания Лидер]

Took note.

 

[Детектив-Молдова]

Arsen, thanks!
The topic is relevant and interesting.
Andrei Valerievich, as always, you are an expert in this field!
According to the current legislation (this is a universally recognized principle), investigators, prosecutors and judges are simply obligated to accept the evidence presented by the parties. During the preliminary or judicial investigation, they are obliged to thoroughly check them (with procedural actions) and only after that - give an assessment of their legality, relevance and admissibility. The parties that submitted them should monitor this process and not disregard the inaction of the investigator, prosecutor or court. Moreover, in our countries, in which it is declared that states are legal, but in fact corruption and corruption are dominant.

 

[Плотников Юрий Михайлович]

Thank!

 

[Хагани]

thank.......

 

[Турабян Владимир]

THANK!

 

[Роберт]

I don’t agree! Let's list the entire law course here. Directly on lecture topics: D
It is necessary to focus on the comments of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court. Because the practice of proof is assessed by the court itself, and let all theories be different: D

 

[Арсен]

I don’t agree! Let's list the entire law course here. Directly on lecture topics: D
It is necessary to focus on the comments of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court. Because the practice of proof is assessed by the court itself, and let all theories be different: D

I suggested and recommended Robort, whether or not your business agrees, each thinks differently. This literature is dedicated to
directly to the process of proof and very interesting, at least to me, and if you are not interested in it, you can not read.